By Ted Belman (first posted Feb 28/08)
I thought I would begin with a prediction. “Obama will win the nomination but lose the election.”
Fox News are on to him and all the arguments our “smear” campaign is making and for the most part it is running with them. Sean Hannity is the best.
Slowly, but surely Obama, is doing himself in. It is not just the company he keeps but also what he is now saying.
Ed Lasky, the News Editor of The American Thinker, reports on Senator Obama’s Coming Out Party in Cleveland. Ed does a brilliant job of ferreting out the true meaning of Obama’s remarks. But in my opinion he mis-states two things which I want to address first.
-
“Most supporters of Israel now understand there will need to be a viable Palestinian state and that Israel will need to make territorial concessions.”
Recent polls disclose that 2/3 of Israelis are against dividing Jerusalem and retreating from Judea and Samaria and that is despite the fact the the entire world including the Government of Israel and its media have been embracing the two state solution.
-
“Senator Obama also sought to dispel rumors of anti-Semitism within his church (American Thinker has never made this accusation; nor do we support this allegation).”
I submit that The American Thinker is wrong in taking this position. Organizations and individuals who take positions critical of Israel, which Obama’s church does, often cross the line into antisemitism. Lasky knows the difference between legitimate criticism and antisemitic criticism. Obama’s Trinity United Church of Christ surely fits the later category.
Bill Levinson posted two very important articles on Israpundit which can’t be ignored; Obama’s Church Connected to Sabeel, Naim Ateek and Obama’s Church and Black Liberation Theology Also remember the remark by Michelle Obama, namely, “for the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.” I believe such a comment reflects this theology.
The respected NGO Monitor had this to say about SABEEL’s Ecumenical Facade
-
Reflecting its mission statement, Sabeel is active in promoting an extreme anti-Israel agenda in Protestant churches in both North America and Europe. Sabeel’s efforts have promoted the campaign to isolate and delegitimize Israel through the divestment campaign, which have recently been adopted by the World Council of Churches, the Anglican Church in Britain, the Presbyterian Church, and others.
What could be clearer? Now here is part of Lasky’s article.
[..] Nevertheless, other parts of his speech were far from reassuring, and once again cast substantial doubt on his views not just toward Israel but also specifically toward supporters of the America-Israel relationship here at home. Senator Obama believes words matter; it is a mantra of his candidacy. Therefore, it is only fair to look at the words he used in Cleveland to divine his views.
He seems to be addressing many supporters of Israel in America who have questions regarding his views and his plans. He finds fault with them:
“I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel”.
Senator Obama characterizes those who have concerns about policies he might follow as President as being Likud-supporters. This has been a charge propagated by the fiercest opponents of Israel, who have often slipped into conspiracy theories regarding American supporters of Israel. (Try googling Likudnik and “dual loyalty” or “conspiracy theory”; Likudnik has become a term of opprobrium. As David Berstein notes, “Likudnik has gradually become a general anti-Semitic term for Jews whose opinions one does not like.”
One wishes Senator Obama would be bit more sensitive going forward when he uses such a term. After all, the Likud Party has not been in power for years, and Americans should feel free to express their concerns without being characterized as that party’s supporters, with its suggestion of dual loyalty. The suggestion that supporters of Israel who express their concerns are subscribers to the view of the Likud Party of Israel is simply not grounded. After all, supporters of Hillary Clinton have also expressed qualms regarding Senator Obama’s views of Israel. Are they supporters of Likud, too?
Haaretz columnist Shmuel Rosner raises an additional reason to have qualms. Will a President Obama be supportive of an Israel headed by a Prime Minster who hails from the Likud party? Does this statement by Senator Obama risk interfering with Israeli politics?
It is important to note that Likud did give up the Sinai and that Ariel Sharon — a former Likud leader — did remove all the settlements from the Gaza Strip. So one wonders why Senator Obama is so anti-Likud to begin with? Does he not know the history of this volatile region? Who has he been his counsel when he chooses to use such a term?
Senator Obama also sought to distance himself from Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose anti-Israel views are well known. However, he made no mention of two other advisors with a long record of hostility toward Israel: Robert Malley and Samantha Power. Power, in particular, is very close to the Senator and is a key foreign policy adviser . Why the omission of any mention of both?
But in trying to disentangle himself from Brzezinski, Senator Obama engaged in some rhetoric that is unsettling:
“Frankly some of the commentary that I’ve seen which suggests guilt by association or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure Israel that is non military or non belligerent or doesn’t talk about just crushing the opposition that that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel, I think we’re going to have problems moving forward.”
Senator Obama apparently views Israel as a “belligerent” and perhaps wants to see America’s support for Israel’s military reduced. This is hardly reassuring. Israel is not a belligerent, it only defends itself. It is a tiny sliver of a nation of a few million people surrounded by 300 million people who have made quite clear over the past 60 years that they desire its destruction. Few supporters of Israel indeed think that the only way to bring peace to the region is for Israel to crush all the opposition. Israel herself, since her founding, sought — and sometimes fought — for peace. These steps did not involve crushing all the opposition. Israel has taken great risks in it steps towards peace (leaving Lebanon — which led to the rise of Hezbollah; leaving Gaza — which led to the rise of Hamas; allowing Yasser Arafat to come to the West bank, where he set up a terrorist regime and brainwashed Palestinian children to hate. A leading Presidential candidate all but accuses Israel of being “belligerent” — is that unsettling to anyone?
Also unsettling is the implication that may lie behind his statement that we are going to have “problems moving forward” if critics raise questions about his views. Is this a statement meant to forestall discussion? If so, it would be similar to the views expressed by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, who abhor the role that pro-Israel Americans (including Christians) sometimes play in the foreign policy discussion.
These statements are difficult to square with his position that he has a long record of support for Israel. If he is perturbed by critics and indicates questions may cause problems in the future regarding his policies and actions, then perhaps people have legitimate reasons to be concerned about the depth of his support for the America-Israel relationship and the role of Americans in the foreign policy discussion.
Senator Obama also said that supporting the view that only by defeating its Islamic foes can Israel enjoy any semblance of peace and security “can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel.”. This is disconcerting. How firm and deep will President Obama’s support for Israel be when it comes to dealing with terrorists? Israel needs to defeat its Islamic foes who seek its destruction and who celebrate martyrdom for peace to reign. Even Palestinian moderates will feel constrained in making peace deals with Israel until these Islamic extremists are defeated. Wouldn’t Israel be justified in stopping Islamic foes that are calling for another Holocaust?
Would President Obama feel the same towards Islamic foes who target America?
Senator Obama also indicated that siding with those who seek the dividing of Israel does not make him anti-Israel. This is true. Most supporters of Israel now understand there will need to be a viable Palestinian state and that Israel will need to make territorial concessions. He stated that backing the Jews’ biblical, historical and legal claim to all of the land in question also can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel. Of course, Israel has already made such concessions: the result is Hamasstan in the Gaza, which has become a center for terror directed daily against Israel. As Israel moved its forces out of the West Bank, those areas became centers of terrorist activity.
Senator Obama has already telegraphed his views regarding land, which seemed to prejudge the final outcome. But it might be wiser from a diplomatic point of view if he does not signal to opponents of negotiations his position if he becomes President. Also, violence has ensued when Israel voluntarily withdrew from lands; the world has remained silent and expresses very little sympathy for Israeli victims. Is counseling the division of land now something a friend would do?
Notably, the word “Jerusalem” is entirely absent from Senator Obama’s remarks. Surely that is not inadvertent. Does Senator Obama support or oppose the division of Jerusalem? Is Senator Obama aware of the destruction of Jewish and Christian religious sites when Jerusalem had been divided previously? Is he aware of how Jews were denied access to their religious sites when the city was divided? If Senator Obama does support the division of Jerusalem, how would it be divided? American Jews certainly cannot evaluate the Senator’s views on Israel when in a lengthy speech to Jewish leaders he keeps his views on Jerusalem to himself.
Senator Obama also stated that a full withdrawal from Iraq would strengthen America’s ability to deal with Iran. This logic is difficult to see. How would that happen? A precipitous withdrawal would embolden Iran. There would be no fear of American forces near its borders and its Shiite allies within Iraq would be strengthened. If anything, Iran would be empowered by such a retreat. How leaving would help us deal with Iran is opaque.
Senator Obama also sought to dispel rumors of anti-Semitism within his church (American Thinker has never made this accusation; nor do we support this allegation). Within the speech was this nugget:
“But I have never heard an anti-Semitic comment made inside of our church.”
And I suspect there are some of the people in this room who have heard relatives say some things that they don’t agree with. Including, on occasion, directed at African-Americans — that’s maybe a possibility that’s just, I am not suggesting that’s definitive.”
This is a Clintonesque statement if there ever were one. Senator Obama has never heard anti-Semitic statements “inside his church.” How about members who may have made such comments outside the church? How about his pastor’s relatively recent written anti-Israel statements that he excuses on the ground of Israel’s former relationship with South Africa. This also conveniently elides the fact that his Church’s magazine very recently gave an award to Louis Farrakhan, one of the most infamous anti-Semites in America.
In an attempt at self-justification, Senator Obama relegates his pastor, who is his spiritual mentor, and who inspired the title of his book The Audacity of Hope, as something like a crazy old uncle in the attic. Worse, he suggests that Jewish leaders may themselves have relatives who have made remarks that might be considered anti-African American. That is entirely irrelevant. There is a substantial difference between relatives who make private (or even public) comments that are disagreeable, and a relationship with a pastor that was sought out and supported, praised, and regarded as a mentor for two decades. Although one can distance oneself from relatives, it’s not so easy to resign from them. The same is not true of a pastoral affiliation.
Undoubtedly, the Jewish community would expect a presidential candidate to resign from a church whose pastor publicly supported David Duke and whose magazine gave him an award. The community would hope that Senator Obama would have taken such a step many years ago. Some may consider it disingenuous of the Senator to excuse his own voluntary association on the ground those Jewish listeners might have family members who harbor private prejudices.
Senator Obama’s speech occurred in the wake of comments made by Ralph Nader on Meet The Press. Nader claims that Senator Obama is too pro-Israel these days and remarked that the Senator was pro-Palestinian for years before he began his campaign for higher office. While some may view this as a reflection of Senator Obama’s evolving views (certainly his supporters will), others might question the coincidence of changing his views when he sought to garner support for his campaign.
Now that he has racked up a string of victories and vast amounts of financial support, he apparently feels comfortable in articulating some views regarding Israel and supporters of Israel in America that may give comfort to Ralph Nader but might leave others with even more questions than before.
Finally we can’t forget this quote from Obama’s book Audacity of Hope
-
“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
Whatever did he mean by that?
Obama is not legally African-American as he claims but Arab-American and Islam still considers him to be a Muslim. Surely Americans are entitled to take this into account when they are voting for the next President of America.
And lets forget Debbie Schlussel’s exclusive Obama’s Nation of Islam Staffers, Edward Said & “Inflexible Jews” Causing Mid-East Conflict: An Obama Insider Reveals the Real Barack
Atlas Shrugs recently posted Obama and Islam:The Third Rail in American Politics. This post has a great deal of new information on Obama’s past. So does her post Obama:The Audacity of Graft. Many people consider Obama’s dealings with Rezko to be his achilles heel.
Aaron Klein reported Obama raised funds for Islamic causes
No, Obama is going down and rightly so.
Teshuvah (#51), well, (1) seeing as how this is “Israpundit” I especially denounce and reject David BenAriel’s British-Israelism, that he considers himself an Israelite and the consequences that stem from it, and (2) seeing as how this article is about Obama and the issue of race politics has come up in the comments, I also feel compelled to especially denounce and reject the reverse-Farrakhanism (i.e., white supremacism) of David BenAriel that accompanies such cultic British-Israelism beliefs, supported by twisting scriptures (as he does in #45). BenAriel is not well, he thinks he’s of the so-called lost tribes of Israel and must unite with the Jews (means something different to him than to the average person) for endtimes reasons. Extremists like him give other professing Christians a very, very bad rep. I don’t care if someone believes different than me, even if it’s crazy, but in the same way that we expect Obama to distance himself from Farrakhan, I feel it’s prudent for me posting on this site while calling myself a Christian Zionist, to distance myself from the very atypical BenAriel since he calls himself a Christian Zionist as well. I don’t pretend to be an Israelite–ethnic and/or national, he does.
(David, I have denounced Obama’s church, more than once, elsewhere. I’m neither Jewish nor an Israelite.)
Michael J. Gaynor writes:
America’s voters need to know why Louis Farrakhan, the head of the Nation of Islam, praised Barack Obama at the annual Nation of Islam conference as “the hope of the entire world that America will change and be a better place” and Mrs. Obama’s thesis suggests why.
More on Mrs. Obama’s Thesis
#43 Hyman Peskin, you are the crazy. You refuse to draw appropriate conclusions from the facts. In fact you deny the facts.
This comment is from a Christian living in Israel:
Also see Stan Goodenough’s Trusting in Princes.
Soren (#48): What specifically do you denounce and reject? From David’s website and Amazon it appears he was kicked out of Armstrong’s church, has lived in Israel supporting Israel. Was kicked out of Israel, but from elsewhere I read that “Israel is persecuting the local Christians by not granting them visas to stay any more. They have driven about half of the long term Christians from the land so far.” GOI also persecutes the religious Jews in Israel but of course the GOI is globalist. If I recall the US State Department calls Kahane a terrorist as does Israel, and I think they are against British-Israel as well. They obviously are pro-Muslim and anti-Jewish and anti-Christian.
“If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck”.
Well, if Barak Hussain Obama walks like a Leftist & qualks like a Leftist then …”
Listening to Barak Hussain Obama’s speech last week, one couldn’t fail to notice his openly Leftist agenda. Candidates are infamous for making all sorts of pro-Israel pronouncements in an attempt to capture the Jewish vote. Given his associations with pro-Arab/anti-Israel individuals & groups, what makes one think that despite his pre-electon statements regarding Israel, that if elected to the office of President, he won’t follow the leftist pro-Arab agenda visa vis Israel.
soren comments: I “denounce and reject” the theology of #45
Exhibit A of either a self-hating Jew or Israelite, the curse I was referring to. Sad. Notice the glaring double standard and typical failure to “denounce and reject” the theology of Obamination’s black supremacist church and close associates. How revealing, eh?
For the record, I “denounce and reject” the theology of #45.
HE MOST CERTAINLY DID PLAY THE RACE CARD! His wife said something to the effect that blacks would or should come to their senses and vote for him. Oprah Winfrey says to a black audience in the south “you should vote for obama, because he’s one of y’all”. Bill Clinton made a remark about obama’s stance on Iraq being a “fairytale” and the obama campaign cynically pretended it was a racist comment and thus was able to rally black voters and win SC. Black politicians and superdelegates are being threatened and intimidated into switching sides. Don’t tell me his campaign hasn’t used race. He has been riding on the idea of possibly being America’s first black president, so I think its quite relevant if in fact his supposed African American heritage is fake and his lineage is really Arab.
My opinion is as relevant as anybody else’s. And what else disqualifies obama is his total lack of experience and qualifications. And his far left views. So kiss my ass and go drink the obama kool-aid. Perhaps you get a thrill up your leg when listening to obama, the way the demented, vile chris matthews does. You and matthews probably get a hard-on as well.
Jeremiah Wails comments: The Israelis are not going to succeed in finding peace through military means, and the Palestinians are not going to find it through terrorist means.
History strongly disagrees, as PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH is proven. Israel has never truly tried it yet, lacking proper Jewish leadership, and too many Israelis fail or refuse to live by biblical standards, forgetting the Law of Moses and so continue to suffer the escalating consequences of their sins that will result in German-EU occupation of Jerusalem (Dan. 9:11).
Israel must remove the threat. No Nazi Muslims (or those who aid and abet them), no terrorism. It really is that simple, so why should some continue to complicate it and enable Israel’s sworn enemies to spill more Jewish blood? Isn’t enough, enough?
Israel’s Betrayal of the Jews
Israel’s Only Way Out: Follow Kahane!
zionsake wrote: Noah prophesied, “Japheth (Europeans, etc.) will live in the tents of Shem (the Jews).” Presently about half of the known Jews in the world live in the tents of Japheth, but that is going to change!
Japheth is Asian, not European. Many of the white peoples of NW Europe and within the British Isles are Israelite. Many Jews are living among their British-Israelite and Euro-Israelite brethren, rather than following Judaism to the Jewish Homeland.
And BlandOatmeal wrote: What’s really amazing to me is that so many white Americans, of Protestant Yankee stock, have gone over in such large numbers to someone who so obviously is NOT one of them. I can only see this as a white counterpart to Jewish self-hatred. I am awe-struck at the depth of this phenomenon.
As I wrote in President Barack Obama sound good to you? –
I’m not some silly woman all googley-eyed over Barack Hussein Obama (sounds like Osama, doesn’t it?) or some self-hating or misguided white person who feels I must vote for the black man to prove to the racist PC masters I’m not racist. Ironically, if Obama wasn’t so light-skinned and handsome he wouldn’t have made it this far, thanks to Soap Opera conditioning. Just ask Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Alan Keyes.
This Jewish and Israelite self-hatred, self-destruction, is a curse.
JW
You are right I should have confirmed that quote. I asked someone who read the book for the context but he hasn’t replied.
I received an email telling me of the quote and who announced it. I have written him for more specifics.
I will keep everyone posted.
What am I reading: Senator Obama is to be held responsible for the utterences of his pastor? Am I then to be concerned about what is said by my bigotted Rabbi,who is regarded by most in my congregation as a complete asshole?
Obama’s Lineage, bloodline, religion,are being scrutinized just like in the grand old days of Nazi Germany. My Gd, it is most likely that he is also a leftist. I am getting the impression that most of you bloggers would find the writings of Julius Streicher (der Sturmer),and Geobbels, and Adolf Hitler himsef most congenial. You would find these works rife with anti-leftist, anti-liberal, anti-socialist comments. And where Jews are mentioned, you might just enter the prefex self-hating. And so this is the new fascism, Jewish style? Who would have thunk-it would have come to this?
Why am I so surprised? After all every group has their crazies. Why should not the Jews?
What bothers me is that so many of you out there are betting on his defeat? Just as you so intelligently bet on the war option in Iraq. And then he might remember the character assassins who so viciously attacked him. What then my friends, what then!!!
H. Peskin
Email
In addition to Obama’s ties with the church and what you have discussed, the fact that he chairs a subcommittee on Afghanistan affairs and has not presided over one meeting, his ties to a lobbyist who will be indicted next week and some other charges leveled by Nader. I also omitted from my piece the fact that Senator Obama was absent from one-hundred votes in the Senate. I saw an interview with Benjamin Netanyahu who does not appear to like the idea of presidential visits to certain regimes without preconditions.
I just ran this through Google. In I look at the first 60 listings before giving up. Everyone of them was a blog. Some were right wing blogs (Israpundit was high on the list — 14, if I remember correctly). Others were middle or even slightly left wing (Oprah’s blog was on there). But the sorts of sources in which would have expected to find a reference so incendiary — the New York Times, the Los Angeles Time, the Washington Post, the BBC, the AP, CNN, Slate — not a peep. Nothing even from Bill O’Reilly or Ann Coulter. Nothing from Fox News or any of the other Murdoch mud-slinging media. Nothing but a bunch of bloggers quoting each other.
So until someone can cite chapter and verse and can swear to me (and everyone else who read this) that he or she has seen this quotation with his or her own eyes, and is prepared to give me the context (300 words on either side), I am going to assume that this is right up there with the nonsense about Obama having taken his Senate oath on the Koran.
We can all agree that people who make up lies are morally repugnant and grossly irresponsible. What about people who pass them on without checking on them? In my view, also morally repugnant and grossly irresponsible.
Email
What really concerns me is the Jewish voter who is a dyed in the wool Democrat but who wouldn’t vote for Hillary; therefore, his/her only other choice is Obama. Keep the words coming out about who Obama really is and what his world view really is. The final part of your message concerning the weird quote from Obama’s book should make Jews here in the States sit back and think — he may say he’s not a Muslim, but Islam still considers him a Muslim, and isn’t it interesting the number of financial supporters he has from the unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation’s trial?!? They think he’s their man because they believe he’s a Muslim…
Dore
USA / Israel
I guess Laura doesn’t even think to ask whether “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction” is an accurate quotation, or what the context of it was. I don’t know myself, but it strikes me as completely inconsistent with the modus operandi of a man who has been accused (often, and mostly rightly) of saying and writing absolutely nothing that can be construed as a statement of policy. So I for one would like to see this quotation, if it is accurate at all, in its original context. I’ll settle for 300 words on either side of it.
If Obama isn’t a “real American” then who is? Bush can trace his family to the very earlier Colonial era — and a fat lot of good it’s done him or us. I believe the only requirement for being President is to have been born in the USA. He was born in Hawaii. Sounds good enough to me. He’s entitled by US and Kenyan law to have Kenyan citizenship in addition to his American citizenship, but does he? As for his third world background, that strikes me as a definite plus. Far too many Americans have no idea how people in other parts of the world live, so even though Obama’s experience is from his childhood, that’s far better than no experience at all.
“The very basis of his campaign was on his supposed African American heritage…” This is absolute rubbish. He didn’t play the race card, everyone else did. He certainly didn’t win in Iowa or most of the other states he has one in because he is “supposedly African American.” If anything, he won in spite of that. If all Obama had going for him were Black voters, he’d being doing about as well as Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition.
Now he may still be a fake and a fraud, and we still don’t know what his policies are. Then again, we don’t know what McCain’s are, or Clinton’s are, either. For obvious reasons, they don’t want to say — it’s been shown since Humphrey, if not before, that the less one says about matters of substance, the better one’s chance of being elected. Still, it’s a legitimate complaint. However, the only way to fix it, I am afraid, will be to actually require candidates to make policy statements, not simply wait for them to do so voluntarily.
But his race or mix of races, his father’s and mother’s religions, his religion…. These things are genuinely irrelevant to whether or not he can do the job of President. So far as I know, no one asked whether Joe Lieberman could have done the job (which as a Vice Presidential candidate he was automatically being considered for) since as an observant Orthodox Jew he was going to absent himself from the job for at least one day a week. By all accounts, it’s a 24/7 job, so it’s a bit hard to square it with a self-willed day off every week. People did ask if Kennedy could be a loyal American and loyal Catholic at the same time. He got elected. And while he was not a particularly great President by any measure other than the posthumous public relations campaign mounted on his behalf by men like Pierre Salinger and Arthur Slezinger, no one ever claimed to have heard him taking orders from the Vatican.
So, Laura, your position sounds more than a little cock-eyed and irrelevant — and if it doesn’t actually cross the line into racism, by bring up the issue at all, it comes damned close. Other than his race, and his experiences living abroad, what is it you think disqualifies him from the top job?
Well I make the accusation that obama’s church and obama himself are antisemitic and I stand by that. Prove me wrong. The church honored a vicious antisemite, that makes the church itself antisemitic.
A very ominous statement. This tells us all we need to know about senator obama. He is with our enemies. This obama boy is one of those far lefties who considers himself a citizen of the world. He is not a real American at all. He identifies with our muslim enemy. I don’t like his name, I don’t like his third world and possibly muslim background and I don’t want him as my president. The very basis of his campaign was on his supposed African American heritage, attempting to be America’s first black president. He has used that to rally black voters to his side and propel his campaign. It turns out even that is a fraud. Everything about this man is fake. He is the most dishonest, divisive, manipulative and dangerous politician in America and that is saying alot. This guy is indeed the manchurian candidate who I suspect has radical muslim groups and saudi money fueling his campaign.
Bland Oatmeal, not Brand Oatmeal. Ted, go find your glasses.
Well said, Brand Oatmeal
Tamar Yonah posted this video at her blog. It is entitled Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early and is by the Onion News Network.
Is Obama a Muslim? Check out this video. The text below is from the right side bar at that link.
Oh Salomon, you are so simplistic!
I guess you missed your class in “game theory,” where they discussed the falacy of the zero sum game. You’ve heard of “win-win” situations? If ever there were the potential for a “win-win” on a large scale, then the Israel-Palestinian situation is it. In fact, it can be said that only if both groups win, will either of them win. The Israelis are not going to succeed in finding peace through military means, and the Palestinians are not going to find it through terrorist means.
Thanks for setting me straight on Nader. I like him more than ever. America should have an Arabic speaking President.
Compare his accomplishments with those of any of the three big name candidates — or of all of them put together.
This from Wikipedia:
Okay, I’m just having a bit of fun with this stuff about Nader. Ralph has about as much chance of becoming President as Joe Lieberman, which is too bad, because I think he would make the best President. Ralph that is, definitely not Joe.
More seriously, how does anyone here or anywhere else have enough information to call Obama “far left,” or even mildly left? He has been fantastically consistent at keeping his deep political preferences vague, and has been so for quite a while. I suspect that he’s planned on getting to the White House since the day he entered Harvard Law School, if not before. Being smart as well as ambitious, he recognized that being a policy wonk is good if you want most jobs in government, but not if you want to sit in the big chair. Frankly, I am not worried about his single-minded and Machiavellian approach to US politics. If it works, do it — that is the only rule in politics. Being vague works — or it has many times, and seems to be doing so again. I am more worried about the fact that neither he nor Clinton seemed to know what is happening in Russia. Perhaps because I live only about 1000 miles west of Moscow, what is going on in Russia worries me a great deal.
The most sophisticated commentators (not those on Fox News) I’ve read admit they have trouble categorizing Obama; but those who make the effort usually call him a centrist. Something I read recently (perhaps on Slate) referred to him as “left only in comparison to Clinton.” Whatever one wants to call Hillary Clinton, it should not be “leftist”. Her last mutterings in a leftward direction occurred during her husband’s first administration, and she failed so miserably and suffered so greatly from that incarnation, that she has become as conservative as her strongest constituency, blue-collar workers. In most countries, blue-collar workers can be counted as leftists, but in America, at least since Reagan, they are rightists.
So the election will be a “gut feeling” thing. Pretty scary, but it’s been working for quite a while. If we really wanted to know what our future presidents thought and what they were likely to do, we would demand more from them. For example, why do we let them get away with naming their cabinets AFTER they are elected, instead of demanding to know beforehand. And why not demand written policy papers from them on the big issues? It would not be impossible, but there seems to be no (or insufficient) desire for more clarity, transparency, and accountability. That, in my view, is tragic.
I would vote for anyone, Right, Left, or Center, who would actually bring about more clarity, transparency, and accountability in government. But no one wants to.
At the risk of being branded “simplistic”, the crucial issue is: one cannot be pro-Palestinian (in the common acceptation of the word) and pro-Israeli at the same time. One must take a clear stand. Everything else is rhetoric, politics and obfuscation, dear to those who believe that peddling abstractions makes them appear as profound thinkers.
Shalom Ted and friends
Ted, I appreciate your efforts to bring some sanity to Israel — and now, unfortunately, also to the United States.
I can see, from your photo, that you are a “baby boomer” like me or possibly (if you are well-preserved) a tad older. I imagine you’re Jewish; I’m not. I’m one of those “Heinz 57” Americans — part Jewish, part American Indian, part East European, part Yankee: it’s a mix that makes Genealogy a fun hobby. What’s more, my wife is Swedish and English, and my daughter married a Chinaman.
I think it’s important to give my ethnic background, when talking about Obama. He certainly is a “new sort of creature” on the American political scene. I imagine that he is the embodiment of “honoring diversity”, the buzzword of the Leftist media and education system that prevails in our country. Is the man Christian? Moslem? Actually, he has a foot in both doors: contrary to the view of davidstill, he is most assuredly Moslem: He was raised Moslem, in a Moslem country; and according to Islamic doctrine, “Once a Moslem, always a Moslem”. He is also “Christian”, but of a curious kind: He belongs to the most “ecumenical” denomination in the United States, the United Church of Christ — a group so ecumenical, in fact, that his pastor is a strong supporter of bigoted, antiSemitic, hate-filled men such as Louis Farrakan.
Is Obama “African American”? Actually, he is, LITERALLY: His father is fully African, not a U.S. citizen (a Kenyan, to be precise), and his mother a white American; so he is “literally” African-American. Unfortunately, in these times of Newspeak, “African-American” doesn’t mean what it actually says: the term has taken on the meaning, in most peoples’ eyes, of a Black American whose black ancestors have been in the U.S. for many generations, and this definitely does NOT. “African-Americans”, in their ACTUAL meaning, are fully “native” Americans; but Obama is NOT: He is HALF native American (not to be confused with “Native Americans”, another politically correct but meaningless label) and half native African in parentage. He is a US citizen by virtue of his mother, but equally eligible for Kenyan citizenship because of his father. As for his upbringing, he was raised in the United States (in Hawaii, our ethnic “rainbow” state) and also in Indonesia.
So Obama is something of an “odd duck”, in a land that is increasingly becoming a COUNTRY of “odd ducks”. In that sense, one might suppose that his supporters come from the other “odd ducks” in this country, such as me. They do NOT: Catholics, both Latino and Anglo, have been voting nearly 2:1 AGAINST Obama. Children of East European immigrants are also overwhelmingly against him. Women also oppose him, in favor of Hillary. So many Americans oppose him, in fact, that I really had to scratch my head when I saw that the betting odds had turned in his favor for winning the election. WHO, I thought, supports this young, whippersnapper political neophyte with no military record — especially a man of truly Middle-American background AND politics, a war hero with decades of public service behind him (I mean, of course, John McCain)???
The American Blacks support him, by almost 90%, for obviously racist reasons.
The American Jews support him, by and large, because of their famous self-hatred.
Pagans support him; Atheists support him; Anti-Christians support him, and of course, Moslems overwhelmingly support him…
…and he is the absolute darling of lily-white, Northern Leftist “Liberals”.
All of the above could be expected. I was raised as a Roman Catholic, in an ethnic neighborhood in a big Midwestern city; and I can tell you that I would be amazed to learn about anyone in my extended family supported this alien kid, just out of diapers. Your’re Jewish, so you have a problem, a real problem. If Moses were alive today, I think the Catholics would follow him through the Sea of Reeds but the Jews woudl be in Pharaoh’s army, chasing after them! but as I say, that’s your problem.
What’s really amazing to me is that so many white Americans, of Protestant Yankee stock, have gone over in such large numbers to someone who so obviously is NOT one of them. I can only see this as a white counterpart to Jewish self-hatred. I am awe-struck at the depth of this phenomenon.
Who will win the election? I don’t know — it really is in God’s hands. In 1992, we had a choice between a totally disgusting man (Papa Bush) and a complete disaster (Bubba Clinton), with a rich clown (Ross Perot) thrown in just for spice. It was a close call (I voted for the clown), which was amazing in itself because just the year before the election, Papa Bush had an 80% approval rating! What happened in one year, to cause him to plummet so? Bush’s ratings fell into the red when disastrous hurricanes slammed into the Alabama and North Carolina coasts. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that Bush Junior was made to look like a bumbling incompetent during the Katrina disaster last year. Hurricanes are “acts of God”, as even our godless lawyers admit.
Who knows what “winds of change” might happen between now and November. Am I concerned about it? Sort of — enough to remember to vote (for John McCain, of course). But I’m much more concerned about what’s been happening to my Yankee kinsmen. The Jews have been dealing with self-hatred since the “Enlightenment”; but this is a new phenomenon for Mainstream America. Clintons and Obamas will come and go; but they are only individuals: What I’m talking about, is the very soul of my countrymen and kinsmen. God forbid, that we should turn out like the Jews! My faith is in God: He will save us, and He alone; but it will be so sad for some! How long! How many innocents will suffer!
Thank you for your post, Ted. Kol tuv.
BlandOatmeal 🙂
Ralph Nader is Lebanese Christian? Wow. I will have to go check this out. For at least 25 years I have believed him to be Jewish. I guess I thought he was Jewish because he’s so smart and does so much good. Apparently I will have to revise my thinking on the Lebanese.
Israel’s reliance on American administrations is making it weak. See http://sabayeshayah.com/archives/001379.php
Nader is Christian Arab Lebanese.
Jeremiah,
Where did you hear that Ralph Nader is Jewish? It is my understanding that he is of Lebanese Christian background.
JW
No one suggests that there wouldn’t be fight as a result of Israe3l attempting to make its own decision. It is a matter of prudence to have a President who is less of any enemy or represents a constituency that is supportive.
I know you know all this.
Obama represents the extreme left whose policies are not favourable to Israel. It comes as no surprise that there are many “good” Jews in that camp. They don’t argue that Israel is a client state but rather that it is a pain in the ass.
No one disputes that Israel is a client state but some are not happy with that condition and want to break free. Whether that is possible remains to be seen but at least some of us want to try.
I can’t figure out something here, Ted. Periodically on this website there is a spate of opinion saying that Israel can, should, and must go it alone. The correlative to this thinking is: Israel is not a “client state” of the USA, and doesn’t need to listen to America’s plans and programs for the future of the Middle East.
If one actually believes that line of thinking — I don’t, but apparently a number of people on this blog do — then why do any of you who think Israel can go it alone care so much about the next President of the USA? You say Israel needn’t listen and shouldn’t listen to the USA, so why care about who is doing the talking? Israel should decide for itself and by itself what its strategies and tactics (not to mention ethics) should be, militarily, politically, and socially.
Either Israel can go it alone without concerning itself about America or anyone else, or it is a client state of someone, and if it is a client state of someone, that someone is the USA. If it is a client state of the USA, then Israel has legitimate concerns about who is sitting in the oval office, but it also ought to (and eventually must) do as it is told, or risk losing its status as a protectorate, financial beneficiary, and generally favored nation. However, if it ain’t a client state, then what is all the hubbub about?
An apparently growing number of people — including many who believe themselves to be “good Jews” and at least qualified supporters of Israel — are supporting Obama. After Clinton’s string of losses and failure to dent him in the Cleveland debate, I expect the acceleration is continuing. For the reasons Wombat5000 identified, Obama has been tapping into something that America hasn’t felt for more than a decade at least, but that they desperately want to feel. That something is “hopeful optimism.” Assuming he becomes the nominee for the Democratic Party, I expect I will be voting for him. Of course, I could vote for the best and most experienced candidate, who also happens to be Jewish. Ralph Nader, of course.
The article’s thrust is that Obama’s candidacy is based upon rhetoric and not specific accomplishments.
Obama and the Abdication of Reason
Some might come to that conclusion, others would feel (pardon the pun) the article stresses the troubling mindset of his cult following…
Senator Obama’s success is spectacular not just for its scale, but for the means by which it has come about. The strategy employed by the Obama campaign, as commentators—including some on the liberal bench—have observed lately, has been one of substituting rhetoric for reason, and style for substance, in an effort to win the hearts of supporters with a syrupy message of change, hope and inspiration. It’s the same style as that adopted by many a Pentecostal preacher, and it seems to be having the same spellbinding results.
Reagan gave us hope, but such hope was based in reality – not merely wishful thinking.
David Ben Ariel posted a link to “Obama and the Abdication of Reason.” The article’s thrust is that Obama’s candidacy is based upon rhetoric and not specific accomplishments. Hmm. Where have we seen this before? Ronald Reagan ran a campaign based on rhetoric and little emphasis on specifics. Whether one liked him or not, Reagan was one of the most successful Presidents of the last century. He was able to win support from big majorities of American voters and once in office, he achieved sweeping changes in both domestic and foreign policy. While Obama’s ideology is different from Reagan’s his approach to electoral politics is similar.
Obama’s success so far is not about his specific legislative achievements but his ability to make voters feel a sense of hope. That’s how Ronald Reagan won against more experienced opponents. That’s how John F. Kennedy won against a more experienced opponent.
Obama and the Abdication of Reason
Obama and the Abdication of Reason
President Barack Obama sound good to you?
This incredible success Obama has to raise funds reminds me of the billions pumped in to bolster the moderate** Muslim, Abbas. It seems to me there are those who want Obama to win for the sake of their agenda, similar to the drive to divide Israel’s land, not for the benefit of the poor Palestinians, but to weaken Israel and to prevent her from becoming the super power the Bible says she would. Noah prophesied, “Japheth (Europeans, etc.) will live in the tents of Shem (the Jews).” Presently about half of the known Jews in the world live in the tents of Japheth, but that is going to change!
** A moderate Muslim is a bad Muslim not doing what the Koran commands.
psst, David, Panama, Iseman, such these things are trivia compared to other McCain flaws, keep looking. At one time, I thought if Huckabee doesn’t get the brokered convention I’m still hoping for (depends much on Texas), that I could vote for McCain, but after what I’ve learned, I just really trust him less on Israel than I trust Obama, which is like almost not at all. (I’m also hoping McCain might get kicked off the Ohio ballot altogether due to his seeming failure to comply with their laws, but realistically I don’t see that happening.)
Email
A friend passed this filth of yours on to me. You make me ashamed to be a Jew. I support
Israel and I support Senator Obama. I am so sorry that your small brain can;t wrap itself
around this seeming contradiction. Stay on the narrow path with your narrow mind. Miss
everything that complex and interesting in this world.
Si se puede
Michael Singer
You assert that Israel is not a belligerent but only defends itself. These days, that is a pretty inaccurate statement. Israel does not defend itself. Kassam rockets fall daily but Israel does not act like any other sovereign nation would to destroy the attackers. Given the weak, supine posture of the Olmert regime, why should any supporter of Israel demand that an American President be more assertive in sticking up for Israel than Israel for itself. If you are so upset about American politicians being “weak” on Israel, I suggest it is because they are pretty much following the lead of a weak Israeli government.
Whaa? It doesn’t matter where McCain was born. His parents are US citizens (at least I figure they are), so he could have been born in China or Russia; he would still be a US citizen.
I don’t believe that Obama will be good for Israel. Among other things, he made comments at a speaking engagement a few years ago that he sided with the Arabs in Israel. However, that said, I don’t believe that whoever the next President is (including anybody who isn’t running), will be good for Israel. I firmly believe that you’ll just keep seeing the presidents getting worse and worse (wow, worse than Bush???). When it comes down to it, the US only showed friendship to Israel because she was their eyes and ears in the Middle East and Russia; without Israel, the US would have lost the Cold War. The US always needed Israel, not the other way around. Now, the US has the 51st state of Iraq so they don’t need Israel anymore.
Email
WOW! THIS IS VERY INTERESTING!!!!
Email
good…he sure started stammering the other night didn’t he when the
moderator brought up his “pastor”…..
Email
We have NO ONE for whom to vote …..
McCain is weak and a fool That incredibly stupid apology for using obama’s middle name showed us.
Somehow/ somewhere…..there MUST be someone…..but, where is HE ….?
I am a Tom Tancredo supporter…..unfortunately, he had no funding and is also not a strong speaker
He has been on the illegal immigrant issue for years…….
Email
Good Piece..
While I am happy that the late unravelling of Obama has finally begun, my concern is that once again, Jews will be blamed for it…
So be it…
Email from a Christian friend
Good article Ted and right on.
Did you hear this one?
Last summer Chelsea was given a job as a journalist in training . The editor thought he would
create an interesting situation by sending her to interview a group of troops from the South transferring through the Washington airport on their way to Iraq.
She approached one soldier and asked him if he was afraid of going to Iraq to fight the Sunnis and the Shiites.
He looked at her and said,” No Mam.There are only three people in the world I am afraid of. Osama,Obama and yo Mama.”
All the best.
Mike
Email
Obama may lose, but not for any reasons you outlined. US Jews will give him
a large majority of their votes, as usual – probably about the same
percentage as they would have given Hillary.
df
First, let me state that I fully support Obama and do not for a moment believe he will be “bad” for Israel. That said, why bother to speculate on what is so clearly unknown at this point? guessing he will lose gives you a 50/50 shot.
Obama is of mixed parentage. He is not and has never been a Muslim. What your post now must do is deal with the issue that mcCain will soon face: he was born in the Panama Canal zone and may not be eligible to run!
Well, I know many supporters of Israel who do not believe that “… there will need to be a viable Palestinian state and that Israel will need to make territorial concessions.” The left in Israel used this same tactic when they were working for the destruction of Gush Katif. Fox News, BTW, is famous for making wrong predictions (as well as reporting old news).
Let’s be honest, Obama’s statement “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction,” is exactly what Bush has done, only he hasn’t said it.
(Your statement “Obama is not legally African-American” actually applies to a large percentage of blacks in the US …. but that is another story.)
Ted, I agree with all your points. Still, I don’t see how this will lead to Obama’s downfall, unfortunately. Fox News and our wonderful world of bloggers is not going to make the difference.
I hope I’m wrong.